I am writing after a very long time, I have been busy with certain things in my personal life, I apologize to my readers. There is nothing better to resume my blog, other than the most gracious blessing of God upon mankind, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

Not so long ago, an infamous amateur film maker (not sure if he is that or not) released a short-film, in which he depicted the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) as an inhumane personality. Which has caused ripples of protests across the Muslim world, enraging then across the globe. I haven’t seen that infamous video myself but the act of this Coptic Christian was provocative and saddening. Surely one can see the lack of research on this subject by the team who publicized this video. I will prove it, without quoting any scripture today, I will give references of other (non-Muslim) personalities who analyzed and described the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in their words.

Reverent Bosworth Smith wrote:

‘Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Popes pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports.’

(R. Bosworth Smith ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism’. Page 262)

Washington Irving wrote:

‘His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vainglory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power, he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance.’

(Washington Irving, The Life of Mahomet, page 272)

Karen Armstrong writes in her book ‘Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet’:

‘Muhammad had to start virtually from scratch and work his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality of his own. When he began his mission, a dispassionate observer would not have given him a chance. The Arabs, he might have objected, were just not ready for monotheism: they were not sufficiently developed for this sophisticated vision. In fact, to attempt to introduce it on a large scale in this violent, terrifying society could be extremely dangerous and Muhammad would be lucky to escape with his life.

Indeed, Muhammad was frequently in deadly peril and his survival was a near-miracle. But he did succeed. By the end of his life he had laid an axe to the root of the chronic cycle tribal violence that afflicted the region and paganism was no longer a going concern. The Arabs were ready to embark on a new phase of their history.’

(Karen Armstrong, Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet page 53-54)

She also writes:

‘Finally it was the West, not Islam, which forbade the open discussion of religious matters. At the time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch-hunts of the inquisitors and the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abstruse theological opinions which in both Judaism and Islam were seen as private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam share the Christian conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry.’

(Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, page 27).

Mahatma Gandhi’s statement published in ‘Young India,’1924:

‘I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.’

And finally here is the famous Sir George Bernard Shaw:

‘I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.’

(Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1)

James Michener writes in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955:

‘No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience’

I recon these references will be enough for the reader to wonder why on earth, some mad men came up with such filth about a personality that has been analyzed, studied and followed by every living person on earth? It is nothing but ignorance that prevails in the minds of such people.

Social networks are crowded with pictures, pleas and appeals for the Burmese Muslims caught in the midst of a terrible conflict with the Buddhist majority in Burma. The tales and pictures (most of which are fake though) being used on social media are gut-wrenching and horrifying. Amnesty international has accused the security forces and ethnic majority of Rakhine Buddhists for the violence being perpetrated in the north. It should be well-known that this conflict is purely ethnic and has nothing at all to do with religion. Loss of life (in any way or form) is condemnable and all measures should be taken, to bring these horrific crimes against humanity to an end.

As with everything remotely related to Muslim persecution, my Pakistani (Muslim) friends are at the forefront of the campaign to ensure that the news reaches everyone. They consider this their ‘religious duty’ to make sure every Muslims is actively participating in spreading the news of such violence. Words being used to describe the acts of the Rakhine Buddhists are “shameful”, “heinous”, “criminal”, “in-humane” etc. Just yesterday I noticed a poster where it was claimed that Muslims aren’t allowed to say “Azaan” and that this was “cruel in-justice”. I cannot say it is true but it did sadden me, to think that an individual is being deprived of his most basic religious activity.

But then, it hit me, Burma’s situation is not that different from Pakistan. The majority Muslims in this country impose on (whatever) minority (is left) in this country. Christians, Hindus and other minority religions are being persecuted all the time. Even minority Muslim sects like the Shia sect is not safe from this persecution. They are killed upon identification, Christians and Hindus are forced to give up their religious belief and convert. Those who do and revert back are killed again. Ahmadis are barred from praying, their places of worship (which cannot be dubbed as mosques according to the constitution) are being demolished. They, and other minorities, even some Muslim sects are dubbed ‘wajib-ul-qatl’ (obligated to be killed) and yet the same Pakistani Muslims feel sorry when they find Muslims in the same situation?
hypocritical isn’t it?

In no way I am justifying the crimes against humanity in Burma. They have the rights of religious liberty and freedom of living and speech. But since when does a Pakistani Muslim care about it? Burma is not a Muslim state, if Pakistanis can legislatekilling of people who believe in the freedom of speech, why are they outraged if another country uses something similar to it for Muslims? They celebrate when Mumtaz Qadri kills someone who have a different opinion on some issue, but they protest if the same thing happens in Burma. I hope they understand how it feels to be at the receiving end of this persecution which is deemed ‘HOLY’ by many. It isn’t that holy when it is brought upon them (or people from their clan).

The point of writing this is not to condemn the protests against these crimes being committed in Burma (they are to be condemned strongly), but to make my fellow Muslims understand that they are no different from these Burmese military men or the Buddhist majority, imposing their will on the helpless and exposed minority. I hope this might help them understand.

The three Abrahamic religions are at war with each other for ‘world domination’ due to this in bred hatred. The clergy craves a bigger congregation, wider audience and more control, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam. To achieve their goals, the clergy starts breeding this hatred into their subjects at an early stage. Christians are told how someone who doesn’t holds the hand of Christ is bound for hell while Muslims tell their young ones, anyone who doesn’t pray like they do will be a hell dweller.

I do not know if they (the clerics) are playing God, sending people through to heaven and hell at their will. It is God who will decide on the day of judgement. Not some funny dressed cleric! Who has given them the right to dub anyone as an infidel? Every cleric has his own criteria of infidelity, which is just insanity. It is the most easiest way to ignite one’s rage towards another one, by dubbing them as infidels but, are they out of this world? Or aliens to earth? They are the same flesh and bones everyone is just because they differ in opinion doesn’t mean we go on a killing spree.

The most worrying phenomenon of this hatred breeding is using it at a later stage. Today, we see Islamic militants, Christian extremists, Jewish radicals spewing hatred constantly for each other. The clergy is the center of this manipulation, they use those seeds of hatred put in at a younger stage, to their own advantage. Their subjects work as a remote-controlled Robot (with flesh and bones) for these clerics. The subject is overwhelmed with so much passion, the pain of death, humiliation or retaliation seems very tiny to them.

Fellow readers, hate is good for nothing. None of the religions were based upon hatred for someone else. The founders of the three Abrahamic religions proved to us that love and friendship is what is required to spread the message of God. The sword might win the battle on ground, but it is love and friendship which will give you control over hearts and minds.

Hatred, is a very strong sentiment. It is what fuels one’s anger and outrage. Though it can be controlled and neutralized but, when coupled with religion, it is pretty much uncontrollable. Almost every religion preaches hatred towards every other religion of the world. This hatred is what fueled the forces of the Pharaoh against Moses (P.B.U.H.), the people who crucified Jesus Christ (P.B.U.H.), the Jews and pagan worshipers of Arabia against Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), the crusades, world wars, the murder of minorities in many countries, exiles and many other wars which are not know to the world.

Though I can confidently say that none of these religions, in their pure form, preached hatred towards any other fellow being. I will speak for myself, I didn’t observe it in the ten commandments, Jesus (P.B.U.H.) never preached it and Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) never propagated it. The lives of these Holy beings is filled with events where they showed compassion, love and mercy towards their fellow beings. In present times however, we observe the clergy doing exactly the opposite.

The only conclusion I come to for this inclusion (of hatred) is that, for ages, religion has been dominant in every civilization. Be it, Aztecs, Incas, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Sumerians. It was their religions that brought these civilizations together to become the greatest powers in the world at that time, at the center of which were their respective clerics, but these religions also brought about the demise of these civilizations. Today, many Christians are taught to hate Jews and Muslims, Jews are taught to hate Christians and Muslims are taught to hate everyone who is not Muslim. I understand if this doesn’t sound weird to the reader but trust me it is. This hatred is included just for the purpose of domination over other religions.

We do not observe any role played by the Holy Ghost in the divine plan of creation and also for that matter of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Obviously it is God the Father who is referred to in the Old Testament without any hint of a reference to Christ or the Holy Ghost. In the entire pre-Christian era, among all the Jews who believed in the Old Testament and must have heard this verse hundreds of thousands of times, there was not one who could read the name of Christ in the creation of the Universe or that of the Holy Ghost. In his Gospel, St. John suggests ‘Word’ to stand for Jesus. It is strange that such an important subject has been taken up by author of only one Gospel; by someone who was not even a disciple of Jesus.1 Even if one accepts his word to be the word of God, still it can only be understood to mean the Will of God; a concept that is common to many religions with reference to Creation.

Surprisingly, the age-long secret of Christ’s and the Holy Ghost’s participation in the Creation, remained a secret to Jesus himself. We read not a single statement of Jesus Christ where he claims to be the Word. Therefore, neither had any part to play in the shaping and making of Creation. Again it was God the Father alone, we are told, who fashioned man from dust with his own hands. I have never read anywhere in any Christian writings that the two hands belonged to Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Hence God created everything without the slightest help from, or participation of, Jesus or the Holy Ghost. Were they passive observers generally in agreement with what God was doing or did they actually participate? If the latter is more acceptable to Christian theologists then immediately the question arises whether each of them was individually capable of creating, without the help of the others, or were they only capable in their totality. And again, if all three were essentially needed to pool their functions together to create, then was their share equal, or did one have a larger share of the labour put into the process of creation? Were they three persons with different powers both in intensity and kind or did they share them equally? One has to admit that whichever of the two options is taken, each of the components of Trinity becomes incompetent to create anything in itself.

If the same argument is extended to other Divine functions, the same question will continue to plague the Christian theologists. At the end of the day Christianity will have to admit that it does not believe in one simple entity of God, with three aspects and expressions of one single central power and majesty. But rather that they believe in three complementary components of Godhead that are three segments of the body of God. The question of being equal or unequal would then be assigned a relatively minor status.

Take, for instance, the attribute of Justice and Forgiveness. The Son appears to be more compassionate whereas God the Father appears to be less Just than the Holy Ghost, who took no part in the injustice on the part of God the Father.

The second possibility we mentioned was that Jesus and the Holy Ghost played an inert role in the processes of creation and the government of the laws of nature. That being so, it raises many other questions. First of all what is the assigned role of the two partners of God in the discharging of their Divine functions? If they are passive silent observers, like sleeping partners, then they are automatically relegated to a secondary, inferior position where they coexist with God but without, in practicality, sharing His powers. This concept of God having two non-functional appendices is very bizarre to say the least. I wonder whose conscience it can satisfy. Rationally it is, of course, unacceptable and does not harmonize with the Christian concept of ‘Three in One’ and ‘One in Three’. The oneness in three cannot be reached or even remotely conceived without there being a total merger of will, of powers and of whatever experience of life that can be attributed to a single living entity.

In the case of Holy Ghost, being a separate person, unless that person merges completely and irrevocably, losing all its identity in the other two, there remains no future hope of the emergence of a hydra headed-god with single thoughts, single will and a single body.

So far, we have discussed the question of Jesus the so-called Son and also God the supposed literal Father of Jesus. Yet there is a third person by the name of ‘The Holy Ghost’ who according to Christian dogma, despite having a distinct individual personality, is still amalgamated and so completely and eternally fused with the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ that their merger creates a singleness in three. Now we turn our attention to this question by inquiring whether the Holy Ghost has an ego separate from the God or Jesus, or do they share one single ego? Ego can be described here as the ultimate of consciousness, which in the final analysis, is indivisible and specific to each individual. The same ultimate awareness of one’s being as distinct from others gives birth to ‘I’, and ‘my’ and ‘mine’, as against ‘he’ and ‘his’ and ‘you’ and ‘yours’.

Bringing into focus the three parts of Divinity, we must resolve whether the three have distinct egos of their own or not. If they do not have distinct separate egos, then to attribute to them personages would become inconceivable. Each person, however close he may be to another, has to enjoy a separate individual consciousness of his being.

The official position of most churches is very clear and well-defined, claiming that each of the three entities of God’s personage had a distinctly separate personage of its own. So it is not just ‘Three in One’ it is three persons in one person. The bitter encounter of Jesus with death and all its fateful consequences must have been equally shared by the Holy Ghost. So also, he should have been included in the sacrifice along with Jesus. Again, he must have suffered hell in the company of Jesus and God the Father. If not, then one cannot escape drawing the inevitable conclusion that not only were they three distinct and different persons but also their emotions and faculties relating to head and heart must have been different, separate and insulated from each other.

In trying to further our vision of the Trinity we should attempt to visualize the fact of three persons merging together or existing as merged together eternally as one. So far we have failed to see how they could have merged in their emotions and thought processes.

The only option left, therefore, is a merger in the body. It reminds us of a hydra headed monster on a different scale, mentioned in the Greek mythology, which possessed many heads that grew again when cut off. Of course, man cannot understand the true nature of God and how His attributes function within, but it is very easy and simple to believe in one single entity without specific areas to which certain functions are attributed and confined, like head, heart and kidneys etc. But the scenario of separate individual thoughts and feelings is certainly at variance with the afore-mentioned scenario of a single entity. It creates an image of God which is very difficult to believe and conceive for human beings, many of whom have lived long with Christian dogma without questioning it and have somehow shut their eyes to such glaring violations against the human intellect, supposedly created by God himself.